Quick Update

     Hey guys.  This is just going to be a quick update with what's going on and future plans for the blog.  Last Monday started school for me, and obviously that's taking up a lot of time.  Between school, homework, learning to drive, and personal time, there isn't much time left over.  So, I probably won't be able to write as much as I have been over the summer.
     However, that doesn't mean this blog is dead.  Far from it.  I still hope to get out around two blogs per week.  In addition, I am excited to announce that starting next week, I will have a weekly NFL podcast that will include my predictions for the upcoming games, along with my thoughts on the biggest news in the NFL for that week.  Some weeks I'll have special guests on the podcast as well to give their opinions.  These should hopefully come out around Friday or Saturday each week.
     Overall, expect the blogs at a less frequent pace, but they'll still come out whenever I have time and something to write about.
     Thanks for reading,
     Connor
   

Evaluating the U.S. National Basketball Team

     Yesterday following their 112-86 scrimmage victory against Puerto Rico, the U.S. Men's Basketball Team trimmed its roster down to the 12 players who will represent the U.S. in the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup, which begins on August 30, and is being held in Spain.  While the American team is a strong favorite in the 24 team tournament which has a similar format to the FIFA World Cup, but is the U.S. team really as much of a lock as many Americans would want to believe?

     The US has been placed in Group C, which includes round robin play with the Dominican Republic, Turkey, Finland, New Zealand, and Ukraine.  While it seems impossible for the U.S. to not finish top four in this group, and advance to the knockout stage along with the top four teams from Groups A, B, and D, it isn't as clear whether or not they will breeze through games against top teams such as Spain, Argentina, Lithuania, and Brazil.  

     Let be clear about this.  This is no dream team.  The 1992 Olympic Team starring Hall of Famers like Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson would most likely be able to beat this team.  This is because many of the most talented American players will not be competing, a topic I discussed earlier today.  http://toplevelsports.blogspot.com/2014/08/should-americas-best-basketball-players.html  I may have been a little harsh on some of the players who did make the team when I claimed how this team is not near as good as it could be.  However, the team still does have a wide variety of very talented players, and certainly no scrubs.
     Here is the full list of players on the team.  Derrick Rose, Kyrie Irving, Stephen Curry, Klay Thompson, DeMar Derozan, James Harden, Rudy Gay, Kenneth Faried, Anthony Davis, DeMarcus Cousins, Andre Drummond, and Mason Plumlee.

     It shouldn't come as a surprise that the team really shines with its guards, specifically the point guards.  This FIBA World Cup will be especially important for Derrick Rose, as he seeks to prove that he is poised for a successful comeback campaign in the 2014-15 NBA season.  Alongside Kyrie Irving, another strong slasher, and splash brother Stephen Curry, the backcourt is where the team is poised

to really shine. 

     Transitioning into the shooting guards, James Harden leads the way here.  He has recently claimed to be the best player in the league.  I don't know about that, but he's certainly a strong person at this position who will get the job done.  Joining him as a young but talented DeMar Derozan and the other splash brother, Klay Thompson.  Now while skilled, these backups aren't the best, and in terms of team depth would've really benefited by someone like a Paul George.  Too bad he's injured.  Overall, however, this is a solid group.

     This is where the positives stop in my opinion.  Once you pass the guards, the rest of the team looks very weak in comparison to the guards, and in my opinion this is due just as much to poor roster cuts as it is a relatively weaker talent pool available.

     There is only one small forward on this team, and only one power forward.  If these were, say, Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony, there would be less of a problem.  However, that isn't the case.  Who we have are Rudy Gay and Kenneth Faried.  Now these are good players.  Rudy Gay, while never on a particular good team, has been a consistent 18-20 point scorer throughout his career, and has been snubbed from a few all-star games.  Faried is a big time rebounder and hustle player who is one of the leaders of the Denver Nuggets.

     These guys are what you want out of backups on something like a Team USA.  So, ideally to combat this, you would want some depth in these positions.  Maybe cut someone like DeMar Derozan, or Mason Plumlee (you'll be hearing him later).  I would personally include someone like Chandler Parsons or Gordon Hayward to give a little extra at these positions.  If one of them gets into foul trouble, there will be trouble either trying to play small or big.

     Now big men is where I'm really not that happy.  Two words really sum it up.  Mason Plumlee.  (I guess you didn't have to wait that long).  The U.S. team has decided to go with four centers.  It's pretty obvious that they're trying to match up good with Spain.  Spain will be the biggest competitor for the U.S.  In the backcourt they have Ricky Rubio, Jose Calderon, and Rudy Fernandez.  In the front court, they have (get ready) Pau Gasol, Marc Gasol, and Serge Ibaka.  All six have played in the NBA, and all but Fernandez currently play in the NBA.

     Are you nervous?  I am.  This is a highly skilled team which can rival the U.S.  However, I think we're going about it wrong trying to match up with the Spanish side.  In short, we don't need FOUR CENTERS.  DeMarcus Cousins and Andre Drummond are the best we're going to get in terms of centers, since Dwight and Kevin Love aren't on the team, and we don't have the Gasols.  Anthony Davis can I am also fine with, because he also plays power forward, and complements Faried nicely.  However, the problem is Mason Plumlee.  I honestly believe the only reason he's on the team is because he went to Duke, and Coach K is the coach of the U.S. National Team.  Mason, if you're reading, I apologize.  You're a decent player, but you're too young and not near good enough to be one of the top 12 players in the entire U.S.  You only average seven points and four rebounds and didn't even play 20 minutes per game in your only NBA season.  Why you got in as a fourth center we will never use when we could get Parsons or Hayward is beyond me.

     Now enough complaining.  I can't change the team at this stage, and Coach K knows a lot more than I do.  Back to the important question: will Team USA win the 2014 FIBA Basketball World Cup?  Despite their potential struggles with teams like Spain, I still see them as the clear favorites, and expect them to win.  But will it be a walk in the park?  No.  There are many good teams around the world, and they are only getting better as time passes.  Basketball is no longer just a sport for the USA to dominate.  They have to work for these Olympic gold medals and FIBA titles, but in the end they still have the best talent, at least for now.

Should America's Best Basketball Players Participate in the World Cup?

     Who do you think of when asked who the top players in the NBA are?  LeBron James?  Kevin Durant?  How about Kobe Bryant, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, or Kevin Love?  You know all these people.  They are some of the best players in the world, and play on basketball's biggest stage, the NBA.  Here's two things they all have in common.  Firstly, they are all from the U.S., and secondly, none of them will be representing team USA in the FIBA World Cup, which begins on August 30th.
     It seems like most top players are worried about the risk of injury in playing internationally during the offseason.  While their fears seem to be a little more substantiated by the recent freak injury to Paul George, is this really a valid reason for not participating in competitions such as the Olympics and FIBA World Cup?
     I say no.  Why has basketball been growing so rapidly into a global game?  Why have numerous leagues sprung up around the world?  How is it that 21 of the 60 players drafted in the 2014 NBA Draft came from foreign countries, including three of the top five picks?  All of this has resulted from the top players becoming known on a global scale.
     Much of this has to be attributed to the 1992 Dream Team that took gold at the Olympics in Barcelona, Spain.  The team was full with the best players in the world, and many of the greatest of all time.  Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, and Magic Johnson led a team where most players ended up as Hall of Famers.  I wasn't alive to see them in 1992, but based on video I've seen, these guys were incredible to witness.  Described as the greatest sports team ever assembled and the most dominant team ever, the team romped through the Olympics, winning each game by an average of 44 points,  and having a ton of fun along the way.  Most importantly, the world took notice.
     Mesmerized by the men they saw, other countries began seriously playing basketball and forming great teams of their own, while none has ever become near as great as that team that started it all.  This had led to what we have now, a global game that's only becoming more popular by the year.  However, now most top players aren't playing internationally, disappointing the high expectations set by the Dream Team, who could most likely dominate the current U.S. national team.
       I find this to be a big issue.  I believe that to continue the international spread of the game, and to increase appeal to the NBA in other countries, the best players need to be playing in the World Cup.  Maybe it isn't the biggest event in the United States (for reasons I'm still trying to figure out), but for most countries in the world, it is the biggest basketball event.  These top players need to take it seriously.
     I doubt there has ever been a soccer player who has decline an opportunity to play in the FIFA World Cup.  It is an honor, and an ability to take pride in your country and make a name for yourself in the biggest global sporting event besides the Olympics.  It baffles me how some American players don't see it this way.  All the healthy top foreign players are participating.
     I understand also that one of the main goals of the U.S. team is to train young players and give them much needed experience.  This is great for these players, but hurts the global view of the game of basketball.  Imagine a modern day Dream Team, with a starting five that looks like this.  Chris Paul, Paul George, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and Dwight Howard.  Wouldn't that be a sight to see?  It would be similar to an NBA all-star team where the players actually tried.  This would bring more attention to the FIBA World Cup in the U.S., as well as globally.  This needs to happen.
     It's not like the World Cup is every year, either.  There won't be another one until 2019, and that's five years away (it's usually four but FIBA didn't want to overlap with FIFA).  For many of these top players, this would be the last World Cup they could participate in before being surpassed by the up and coming superstars of the future.
     Most NBA players are playing basketball in the offseason anyway.  Why not support your country while doing it?  That's a change I want to see come 2019.
     Thanks for reading,
     Connor

Wins Aren't a Good Stat for Evaluating Pitchers

     The most well-known statistic in baseball for pitchers is the win-loss record.  It's not hard to see why.  The stat shows how many times a team wins or loses a game with that pitcher being on the mound.  On ESPN or any other sports programming network, it's the first stat used when previewing the pitchers of an upcoming baseball game, usually listed before a pitcher's ERA (earned run average).  Any casual observer to the game would typically assume that this stat would be the best indicator of how good a pitcher is, similarly to how a record is used to show how good any team is.  However, the stat is misleading, and should be noted, but not taken as the and all be all of stats when determining how good a pitcher is.

     The reasoning behind it isn't that difficult to understand.  A player wins a game if their team isn't winning when they begin pitching, their team is winning when they stop pitching, and then the team goes on to hold the lead and win the game.  The issue with this is that while the pitcher can do his best to allow as little runs as possible, he has no control over how the opposing pitcher performs, especially in the AL which uses the designated hitter, or DH.  So for example, let's say both pitchers play the full game.  One allows two runs, a great outing.  However, the other pitcher only allows one. Despite having a great game, the first pitcher takes a loss.  Despite how good a pitcher might be, if he's on a team that doesn't score, or is up against a good pitcher, or just gets unlucky, he just doesn't always come up with a record that suits his skill as a pitcher.   

     That was just an example.  However, similar situations take place all the time in baseball.  Here are just a few real life examples.  For people who aren't familiar with baseball, a pitcher's ERA is the number of earned runs he allows for every nine innings he pitches.  The average is a little over four, and an elite pitcher has an ERA of under three.

     First off is Jeff Samardzija.  In his time with the Cubs this season before being traded to the A's, he went 2-7.  Ouch.  The casual observer would write him off as a bad pitcher who should be begging for a job.  But then look at his ERA.  It was 2.83, or what I would call elite.    In Samardzija's first eight starts, he had an 0-3 record and a 1.62 ERA.  However, the Cubs had only given him 1.88 runs of run support per game, and that had left him winless.  

     Next is the case of Wily Peralta, a Brewers pitcher.  I actually saw this on SportsCenter a few days back and it's part of what inspired me to write this.  Peralta went 4-5 in April and May, with an ERA of 2.73.  However, since then he's gone 11-2, with only a 3.80 ERA, over a full point worse.  Why?  In April and May he received an average of 2.6 runs of support per game, where since he's received 6.1 runs per game.  He had nothing to do with that, but it's making his record appear like he's a star.

     However, the best example of why wins are deceiving comes from today, when David Price threw a one-hitter, allowed no earned runs, and lost.  How is that possible?  Well, a batter reached first on an error, and then went all the way home to score off the only hit that Price allowed, so the run wasn't earned.  The Rays lost 1-0, and since Price was pitching when the Rays' run was scored, he gets a loss, despite throwing a one-hitter.

     So now hopefully having established how inconsistent records can be, now the question becomes what is the best stat for evaluating pitchers.  Some people like stats like strikeouts or strikeouts over walks.  I disagree.  While I admit that throwing a high percentage of strikes is essential for good pitchers, it really doesn't make much difference how a pitcher gets his outs.  Therefore if a pitcher throws a strikeout for every out, but also has an ERA of 7.00, he isn't a good pitcher, no matter how many strikeouts he has.

     If you want to know what some actual MLB pitchers think is the best stat for evaluating pitchers, you should read this article as I found it to be pretty interesting.  http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/players-view-the-best-stat-to-evaluate-pitchers/.  One thing I noticed is how 1/4 of the players asked answered by saying innings pitched.  This intrigues me.  I agree that a pitcher's ability to pitch deep into a game is important, as it keeps the bullpen rested and allows pitchers to really assert themselves.  However, I wouldn't go so far as to call it the most important stat.      

     Now by this point it might seem obvious to you that I like ERA.  I do.  I think that it's pretty difficult to come up with a better stat for measuring how good a pitcher is than how many runs he allows.  However, there might be one, and that's WHIP.  Again, for non-baseball people, this stands for walks + hits allowed per inning pitched.  This basically means that besides batters who are hit by a pitch, WHIP is the amount of batters who get on base per inning a pitcher pitches.  

     It's a tough decision as to which is better and they both have pros and cons.  ERA shows how many runs a pitcher allows, but doesn't show guys who are left on base (LOB).  WHIP is the opposite, showing all guys who reach base, but not a total of runs.  Either way, I say these are the best stats for pitchers, and are both much better than wins.

     Thanks for reading,

     Connor

How Important is the NFL Preseason?

     The NFL preseason takes place annually during the month of August, typically lasting the four weeks before the NFL regular season begins.  While generally seen by NFL teams as a great opportunity to evaluate their players and select who makes each team's 53 man roster,  fans have varying opinions on whether or not anything that happens during the preseason actually matters.  There are the fans that see the NFL's preseason as a great time to see the new rookies play and make sure everything looks good before the season starts, just as many, if not more people see it as a needless waste of time that could be spent on more, real football games.  The NFL is considering shortening the preseason to only two games, and extending the regular season to eighteen, which has caused much debate on the subject.  So just how important is the preseason after all?  More specifically, should it be shortened or stay at its current length?
     The question most fans want answered about the preseason is a pretty simple one: do preseason wins translate to regular season wins?  Disappointingly, the answer is no.  A team that does good in the preseason doesn't have a significantly better chance of making the playoffs or winning a Super Bowl.  Many people like to bring up how the winless 2008 Detroit Lions won all four of their preseason games.  However, I don't think that people should expect a correlation in preseason wins to regular season wins just based on the nature of the preseason.  Starters play maybe one quarter in most games, and if they're even slightly injured, they don't play at all.  Even in the third preseason game, starters never really play into the second half.  It's less about trying to win as it is seeing how different players play together and what plays and formations work best.
     Should fans be disappointed by poor performance and losing during the preseason?  While it might be natural to become disappointed, and fans inevitably are happier when their team is winning, error should be expected in the preseason.  No one takes on another team for the first time in over half a year and immediately should be expected to dominate.  The preseason is really about giving your starters enough experience for them to feel comfortable with their abilities, and devote the rest of time to testing out young players in a variety of situations.
     Some people claim that the risk of getting injured makes preseason games naturally less competitive than a regular season game.  I think it's absurd to liken the preseason to something like the Pro Bowl, where players purposefully don't give it 100%.  The Pro Bowl doesn't matter.  Preseason games matter.  I can see the argument that some starters might not give it their all, but honestly how many starters have jobs so safe that they could give no effort in the preseason and expect to remain an undisputed starter in the regular season?  I would say very few.  Most players are giving it all they've got in the preseason, especially guys fighting for roster spots.  For these players, which are at least 50% of players, and probably more, each snap is a chance for them to prove themselves and perform well enough to accomplish their dream of making an NFL roster.  They're holding nothing back, because if they do they'll find themselves out of the league and with nowhere to go.  Plus, go look at injury reports.  Guys get injured in the preseason just as much as the regular season.
     The deal is, regardless of reasoning for shortening the preseason, players need all four games to be effectively evaluated.  It's unlike baseball, where everyone who starts besides pitchers typically plays the whole game.  It's unlike the NBA where by preseason it's basically known who will be on the team opening day.  These players play a quarter per game, or the equivalent of one to one and a half games of action per preseason.  That's not even counting the fact that offensive players are on the bench for  defense and vice-versa.  The average player is on the field for under a full game's worth of time during preseason.
     The preseason may feel long and mostly unnecessary to many fans, because it is a long preseason when compared to the length of the regular season.  In the NBA and NHL, each team plays 7-8 preseason games, making the preseason slightly under 10% of the games of the regular season.  In the MLB, each team plays around 24-30 games, or around 15-19% of the games every team plays in the regular season.  For football the ratio is 4-16, so the preseason is 25% the length of the regular season, by far the highest in the big 4 sports.  However, due to each player's limited playtime, and all the different players, schemes, routes, plays, formations, coverages, etc. tested by each NFL team during the preseason, the four games are absolutely necessary for each team to have a good sense of what they're doing for when the games really matter.
     Let's think about what happens in a two game preseason.  The starters end up getting more reps in each game because it is mandatory that they get enough in game action so that they're ready for the regular season.  The time they play in four games currently, they play in two.  Teams are rushed to try out all their new plays and ideas they've been practicing in training camp, and the rapid changes and experimentation mean that offenses can't get into a rhythm, and come across as sloppy.  Third stringers get less time to play, and don't have enough chance to prove themselves. Therefore, undrafted players are always cut.  Think about that.  Here's a few notable undrafted players.  Kurt Warner, Warren Moon, Adam Vinatieri, Dick "Night Train" Lane, Jeff Saturday, Wes Welker, and Tony Romo.  We're talking pro bowlers, Super Bowl Champions, even Hall of Famers.  Not even to mention late round picks such as Tom Brady who would probably be cut in this scenario as well.  I realize this was an over exaggerated example, but my point is clear.
     Most likely, some people within the NFL would like to extend the regular season and shorten the preseason simply because of money.  Obviously, more money is made in ticket sales and TV views, and publicity during the NFL season rather than the preseason.  It seems that the endless pursuit of money is controlling the future of football more than anything else.
     So, is the preseason important?  Of course it is.  The four preseason games are instrumental in a team's preparation for the upcoming season.  Allowing players to prove themselves and feel more comfortable with the playbook, the preseason must be used effectively by teams that want to be successful.  Preseason success isn't in the win loss record, but rather in the experience and knowledge gained by both the players and coaching staff.
     Thanks for reading,
     Connor